Transparency, Evaluation and Standards: avoiding pitfalls

Instead, the P/CVE sector would benefit from supplementing evaluation efforts with mechanisms to establish transparency through oversight, regulation and standardisation.

Evaluation and Transparency

Evaluation enhances transparency and accountability: it provides clarity to funders and taxpayers on costings and supports financial sustainability, and stakeholders can see the impact of decisions and practices and hold CT and P/CVE actors to account. Transparency and communication with the public and stakeholders about the rationale and methodology behind evaluations is therefore considered beneficial for P/CVE. Transparent communication has also been linked to the aim of fostering public trust and support for P/CVE efforts. This is a common assumption: a lack of transparency is often argued to lead to low trust, and increased transparency is believed to improve trust and support for P/CVE.

It is important to distinguish between the legal/normative motivations for increased transparency and the instrumental motivations for increased transparency. CT and P/CVE programmes should aim to be transparent a) to comply with legal requirements (typically associated with state programmes); and b) as an important value for governing a challenging field of practice. However, the instrumental function of transparent communication is far from clear. It should not be assumed that transparency will have positive effects, and it should not be the main motivation for prioritising transparency in P/CVE.

Transparent Communication, Trust and Policy Support

A robust body of literature challenges this linear positive assumption and shows that in some cases transparency can decrease support and trust. Our study on increased transparency in Prevent communications found that increased information about the policy (policy information transparency) had a negative effect on behavioural support for Prevent and a negative effect on trust in Prevent.

Whether transparency increases policy support and trust is influenced by three factors:

1. Policy type: Transparency tends to have a null or negative effect on support and trust in controversial policy areas. Areas that involve decisions on matters of life-or-death may provoke taboo trade-offs between sacred values, which reduces the effects of transparency.
   
   In CT and P/CVE, this can be complicated because it often involves trade-offs between values (e.g., civil liberties, freedom of space). While our research did not empirically test this point, the implication is that transparency may have conflicting effects for prevention or rehabilitation programmes, and different effects among audiences that prioritise certain values invoked by CT and P/CVE.
   
   
2. Transparency type: A key assumption around transparent communication is that increasing an audiences’ understanding of a policy area through more transparent information will increase support and trust. A number of studies, including our own research on Prevent communications, has shown this type of transparency does not increase support and trust. Exposing audiences to increased information about Prevent decreased their trust in Prevent and decreased their behavioural support for Prevent.
   
   One form of transparency that has been shown to increase support and trust is decision rationale transparency. This involves providing the rationale behind policy decisions, such as a brief statement saying why it was taken, and has small but positive effects on trust and support by addressing the psychological mechanism of motivated scepticism. Our study on Prevent showed that providing decision rationale transparency on a mistaken referral case – similar to controversial cases covered in the media – made audiences less likely to protest decisions, more willing to accept decisions, and more trusting in Prevent.
   
   
3. Context: The way an audience responds to transparent communication varies by country. In nations with a lower history of transparency, or where transparency is not valued, increased policy transparency can have a negative effect on trust and support. Hofstede’s Power-Distance index can help predict which contexts will have a more or less favourable view of transparency.

Explaining why policy decisions are taken can make the public more willing to accept Prevent referral decisions, and increase trust in Prevent. 

It is worthwhile considering these contextual factors given the tendency for ‘best-practices’ in CT and P/CVE, including in relation to transparency, to be pushed internationally. While greater transparency in programme design is important, the use of transparent communication in an effort to generate support and trust among communities may provoke a negative response in countries where there are greater expectations that power and decision-making should be centralised.

Transparency, Standards and Regulatory Approaches

Taking lessons from other sectors on the influence of transparency can inform CT and P/CVE policy. This includes insights from industry oversight and regulatory processes. Trust in firms is highly dependent on the existence of a regulatory agency, and state-controlled regulators tend to generate more trust than self-regulatory regimes. Regulators can encourage compliance of standards and build trust in a sector through targeted transparency, revealing information about the performance of stakeholders within the sector. The success of targeted transparency in building trust in a regulator, the sector, or its stakeholders is shaped by:

• i) A historical positive reputation.
• ii) Whether the sector is relatively risky (e.g., the nuclear sector).
• iii) The extent targeted transparency messaging avoids ‘naming and shaming’.

A regulatory agency that consults stakeholders can increase decision acceptance among those opposed to regulations. Sanctions by a regulatory agency can increase trust in a regulator, though this is dependent on the sector and whether the regulator is considered politicised.

Promoting transparency through a regulatory agency can have benefits for a sector, however there is little regulation of the P/CVE sector. The UK government’s response to the Independent Review of Prevent included a commitment to greater transparency. This led to the establishment of the Standards and Compliance Unit (StaCu) situated within the Commission for Counter-Extremism. StaCu is not a regulator, however it seeks to build trust by providing greater transparency of Prevent’s referral system and processes, and addressing complaints from the public.

For the international P/CVE sector, while stakeholders have identified the benefits of standardisation of practice, regulation has typically manifested itself through informal self-regulation of sharing best practices and dialogue. The new INDEX network is a promising effort at establishing a self-regulatory mechanism by establishing and promoting unified quality standards in tertiary interventions.

Conclusion

Transparency is an important aspect of P/CVE evaluation, however the sector should avoid the pitfalls of relying on transparent communication to build trust. Instead, regulatory transparency can help to build trust. Establishing an organisation to provide oversight of P/CVE has the potential to improve trust, supplement internal evaluation, and establish a baseline of expected practices for all stakeholders in the sector.